Papaconstuntinos v Holmes à Court

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAFRENCH CJ,HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJTONY PAPACONSTUNTINOS  APPELLANTANDPETER HOLMES A COURT  RESPONDENTPapaconstuntinos v Holmes a Court[2012] HCA 535 December 2012S319/2011ORDERAppeal dismissed with costs.On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South WalesRepresentationT K Tobin QC with R K Weaver for the appellant (instructed by Slater & Gordon Lawyers)B R McClintock SC with R W Potter and M J Lewis for the respondent (instructed by Baker & McKenzie Solicitors)Notice:  This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSPapaconstuntinos v Holmes a CourtDefamation – Defences – Common law defence of qualified privilege – Respondent involved in proposal to invest funds in football club – Appellant was board member of affiliated club – Appellant opposed proposal – Respondent sent letter to appellant's employer conveying imputations defamatory of appellant – Defamatory statements made voluntarily and in protection of personal interests – Whether defence of qualified privilege required respondent to show "pressing need" to protect interests – Whether "pressing need" to be adjudged by reference to test of "reasonable necessity" – Consideration of Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 366.Words and phrases – "community of interest", "fairly warranted by any reasonable occasion or exigency", "pressing need", "qualified privilege", "reasonable necessity". Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), ss 6(2), 24.FRENCH CJ, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ.   In August 2005, South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club ("the Football Club") was experiencing some financial difficulty.  The respondent, Mr Holmes...